S 50 - Judgment Search Results

The Official Receiver of Ramanathapuram, Representing the Estate of th ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad935; (1951)2MLJ200

that it has refused the applicant, the receiver or creditor, something which he had a right to demand. Nor has it In Ex parte Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458 James L. J. said,'A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has

Dr. V.S. Bahal Vs. S.L. Kapur and Co.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: AIR1956P& H24

partners of the firm, who had been a partner for several years, had not at the time of the institution of

Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chhabra, Vsm (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT1993(3)SC359; (1993)IILLJ658SC; 1993(2)SCALE885; 1993Supp(4)SCC441; 1993(3)SLJ49(SC)

rank of Air Vice Marshal. No oblique motive has been suggested on behalf of the appellant against any of the members

B.S.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT688TriDel

respect of Modvat credit on capital goods after considering the scope of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In the

M/S. L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT269TriDel

violation of principles of natural justice cannot be allowed to stand.The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and appeal is disposed

M/S. L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

prays for withdrawal of his stay application. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR has no objection. The stay application is dismissed as withdrawn.2.

S. L. N. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1959]35ITR641(Mad)

however, came into force only on October 1, 1949. A Schedule was appended to the Malayan Ordinance which provided a table

M/S. L.G. Balakrishan and Bros. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

fastened on sprockets manufactured by the assessees herein at the stage prior to their being tested. The contention of the assessees

S.L. Bakoria Vs. Shri V. Tamrekanan

Court: Madhya Pradesh

the order has not been complied with in letter and spirit and the person against whom the contempt petition has been

S.L. Bakoria Vs. Shri V. Tamrekanan

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Judge Judge C. 2 Conc.No.1660/2011 8.8.2012 Later on Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has received instructions